The Military vs. Berkeley

Newsweek Web Exclusive

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

Why has this demonstration lit that spark?
Because I'm not aware of any city councils or mayors that have taken a stand saying military recruiters are not welcome and setting aside space for protesters at the door of the recruiting center. I don't think the military is used to being treated that way.

Is this the start of a new kind of activism where people who agree in fundamental ways still find strong disagreements?
Things have spread from Berkeley in the past. It's very important to ending the war that the public have a chance to debate the military recruiters on campuses or in cities. Because I don't think that our young people are hearing enough about Iraq before they get caught up in it. I think absolutely that this [having a city-sanctioned place for people to protest] should be adopted in other parts of the United States.

Does the vigorous [debate] we're seeing in Berkeley resemble the ones you led in your antiwar advocacy four decades ago?
What you're talking about [in Berkeley] is a few parking spaces for protesters for four hours a week. This is not quite on the scale of the Sproul Hall demonstrations of 40 years ago.

Do you think this movement of activism, regardless of how long it lasts, will affect the presidential race?
It will marginally. The candidates are only halfway through 50 states and going a mile a minute, and there's almost no time to focus on anything but their standard message.

But is there an advantage in saying anything about the antiwar movement and these specific protests?
I'm sure the Democrat candidates would give you 30 seconds and say, "This needs to be worked out so recruitment can take place and freedom of speech can be protected. Next question." They're going to stay with their script. They're not changing much in the middle of this. Not because of the circus in Berkeley.

« Prev Page

The Berkeley City councils anti-US Military agenda is nothing more than the continuing liberal Democratic Party's "loathing" (Bill Clintons words when he ran off to Oxford, England to avoid the draft) for our military that's been going on since these guys spat on our returning Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines when they were returning from the Viet Nam War. While they're now much older now, they have gained power on the city councils of America, in academia, and in the Democratic Party--controlled Main Stream Media and have indoctrinated our young impressionable teens with their anti- America and anti-US Military hatred. While they will never admit it and bluster about really being American patriots when someone mentions the obvious, they'll do exactly what the Berkeley and San Francisco City Council do to our military that they distain and hate with a passion every time.

Since when did public concensus direct American policies? Do we elect presidential candidates based on a popular vote? Governments do not act in the interests of popular concensus. As for soldiers, let's not be so naive. Our soldiers are not philosophers, or agents following some profound moral code. They are political tools. They do not question their leaders, they follow orders - obediently. Please don't rave about the horros visisted on the world by Muslim extremists while our government supports dictators in other parts of the world, South America for example. That said, it was the American government who originally armed those militant groups, when it suited our political agenda - you tool.